[AS&SH] Volume II: Sorcery

Alphabetical order. The 1e PHB has 4 disciplines of magic, so dividing them by class was relatively simple and intuitive. With 7 disciplines of magic in AS&SH, it soon became obvious that it was best to organize things alphabetically, like so:

Blur
Level: ill 2; Range: 0; Duration: 5-8 (1d4+4) rounds
The sorcerer becomes vague, hazy, nebulous. All melee and missile attacks against him are made at –2 “to hit” for the duration of the spell. Likewise, the sorcerer gains a +2 saving throw vs. aimed magical device attacks (e.g. rods, staves, wands and some rings).

Brain Death
Level: nec 4; Range: touch; Duration: permanent
This subtle spell kills a small portion of the victim’s brain region related to memory. The target must be touched, and if so is allowed a saving throw vs. death. If the saving throw is successful, the target is aware that foul sorcery has been attempted, though resisted. If the saving throw fails, the victim has not an inkling that a spell was cast. The sorcerer must then describe the memory he is killing. The memory is limited to an event, a person, a place, a thing, a conversation, etc. This spell cannot be used to kill an ability; e.g. a farmer cannot be made to forget how to raise crops, a cleric cannot be made to forget how to cast spells, etc. If the target rolls a 1 on his saving throw, he loses a year of memories and 1 point of intelligence; this blank is far the more noticeable by the victim’s allies. In either case, a throbbing headache follows the failed saving throw.

Breathe Fire
Level: drd 5, pyr 5; Range 10 feet; Duration: special
The sorcerer must purse his lips after speaking the final incantation of this spell, for the next time he opens his mouth he releases a gush of flames that is 10 feet long and 5 feet wide at its terminus. Victims in the path of breathe fire take 6-27 (3d8+3) points of damage, though they can make a saving throw vs. breath weapon for half damage. The sorcerer can open his mouth at will to release this spell, so he may move, engage in combat or perform other like activities, though he may not cast other spells. If, however, breathe fire is not released within 1 turn (10 minutes) the sorcerer immolates, taking maximum damage (27 hp) with no saving throw applicable. This spell can be dangerous if the caster is forgetful and speaks to an ally or other person.

As you can see, the blur spell is specifically for illusionists, brain death is specifically for necromancers, and breathe fire is for druids and pyromancers.

Cheers,
Jeff T.

Kent, a valid though, but I think we are venturing into "referee's discretion" when you present this line of questioning. Let's think of some examples and see what we come up with. Looking at the spell, I hope you don't mind if I turn the question back at you, but how might you resolve the following instances:

• Massive minotaur guards entrance to dungeon. Party beats the hell out of him but does not kill him. Party moves into cave, but on their way in, the necromancer of party casts brain death, causing minotaur to forget what happened to him.
  
• Thief enters a shop and steals a precious, valuable item. Necromancer enters a short while later and casts brain death, attempting to cause the shop owner to forget he ever saw the thief; alternatively, he might attempt to erase all memory of the item itself!
  
• Man in tavern claims to have found the location of a sunken ship containing a treasure horde. Wants to strike deal with party: if they can recover the treasure he wants 50% and they can share the rest. Party agrees to terms, he tells them location, then necromancer casts brain death to erase man's memory of ever finding lost ship.
  
• Man can't live without his wife. Her death haunts his life and he can't take it anymore. He seeks the aid of a magician -- a necromancer. For 200 gp the necromancer offers to make the man forget he was ever married.
  

So, are there any of these you would rule against being possible?

You called it a 'subtle' spell and I agree.

Consider the AD&D Illusionist which is an ill-considered failure to implement a uniquely interesting class. The illusionist exists as a chip off the MU block and no rules are presented for how to judge illusions for the simple reason the concept is very difficult and paradoxes hard to avoid.

So your spell is a small example of a moment when the writer could step back and define 'memory' for the purpose of the game to avoid idiotic nonsensical miss-use as with the Illusionist.

I only say this because I think the spell idea is interesting and could be unfolded into a suite of related spells if the idea was properly grounded.

For example my own AD&D Illusionist primes his target verbally through roleplaying, and builds plausibility with cantrip like effects before unleashing tableaux which normally would strain credibility.

With Brain Death the necromancer might (covertly) elicit from his victim in conversation the explicit memory and this calling forth of the memory into consciousness might make his task both easier and the surgery more precise.



Minotaur: Memory of event shared with Necromancer. Straightforward success. Could make a low level version of spell for that.

Thief: Necromancer knows what thief looks like but did shopkeeper see the thief? How does one eradicate a memory that might not exist? So the conversation idea works here I think and could call for good roleplaying. The item is a good example so long as the necromancer himself has seen it, otherwise how does he know which item memory to excise?

Sunken Ship: Good example and this is my favourite use of it. Now what would happen if the Man with the Tale was lying? Could the necromancer tell something was up when casting his spell? Maybe a higher lvl one could.

Wife: You yourself invalidated this scenario in the spell description. It is too involved and not an event. I do however think there should be a variant spell (more difficult) that could attempt it.

I know that some would wonder if these considerations are necessary. They are for me. I call it 'thinking' and couldn't play in a game where 'thinking' was discouraged.

Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say ill-considered, but I do wholeheartedly agree that the impact and interpretation of illusions from 0e, to 1e, to 2e can be cause for confusion. Actually, 2e seemed to have recognized some of the issues with the class, no doubt brought on by how many times the Sage had to answer illusion related questions. In my system, I struggled to resolve a system that I feel is effective, and it begins with the first level phantasm spell (level 1 spell for illusionists, level 3 for magicians), and the "improved" and "advanced" tree of illusion spells that branch from it. I digress. We were chatting about the brain death spell...




Kent, I understand what you are saying, so perhaps some examples are in order. Because of space constraints, however, our intention is to use the web site for examples of play and other definitions as you note. These will be located at our "resources" tab.




That's fine. You illustrate precisely (IMO) why tabletop gaming is superior to its video game counterparts, because you as DM can define the various parameters; here you opt for some role play, which is excellent.




Agreed on success. Low level version? Well, I feel my necromancer list is extensive enough, so this sort of tinkering would have to fall to the capable hands of the individual referee. Remember, the effect is permanent. Perhaps a low level version, as you suggest, could suffer the same limitations of re-checked saves the way charm person functions.


Exactly! Here you think much the same way I do. I would go forth like this: Was the shop busy with other patrons? If so, did the thief specifically garner the attention of the shop owner? If the player did not state so, I would roll a d6, determining a chance of likelihood of the shop owner having seen the thief (or not). So, failure in this example is possible! But I would probably allow success if the target of the spell was the item itself, specifically, and yes, the necromancer would have to see it.



I would say the man forgets the lie, but no matter how you slice it, the party is screwed, going on a wild goose chase. That would be some mean refereeing. Heh.




I would not allow this one either. Way too involved, way too many synapses to neutralize (kill).



Certainly everyone's style is different. And certainly I can not go into this level of detail, or the game (which is over 200k words) would double in size. When I was a kid, before the internet, before I could do more than look at Dragon on a magazine shelf at Walden Books, I had to make my own decisions. Now we live in the information age, so we, the collective traditional gaming community, have the opportunity to share ideas on methods, resolution, and clarifications. This is fun stuff!

Ghul, I like the way you are going about this book unafraid of complicated ideas even if the presentation to the general reader has to be easily digestible.

There is a difference for me between roleplaying material which is simple, because the writer is simple, and simplified because the readers are simple. ;D

What makes the witch different from other spellcasters? I'm guessing a mix of spells and potions?

A cool idea. It makes sense that there would only be a certain number of spells to work with, and defining a different mix of spells for each sub-class makes each one individual and unique. (Kind of like spell schools in AD&D.)